As per case facts, industrial units in Maharashtra, responding to an incentive scheme, made significant capital investments in backward areas, expecting full VAT exemption. A 1998 administrative circular attempting to ... limit this benefit proportionately was struck down by courts. Despite legislative intent for proportionality being present in earlier statutes like Section 41BB and Section 93, no rules were framed, leading units to believe they were entitled to 100% exemption and thus they did not collect VAT from customers between 2005-2009. Subsequently, the Maharashtra Value Added Tax (Levy, Amendment and Validation) Act, 2009, retrospectively amended Section 93, formalizing the proportionate exemption from 2005. The industrial units challenged this retrospective amendment, arguing it was arbitrary, unfair, and violated fundamental rights by retroactively curtailing their exemption and denying them the opportunity to recover tax from customers. The question arose whether the retrospective amendment to the MVAT Act, which retrospectively limited VAT exemption benefits and precluded industrial units from collecting the newly imposed tax from customers, is constitutionally valid. Finally, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the High Court's decision. The Court held that the legislative intent for proportionate incentives was always clear, and the 2009 amendment merely rectified a procedural defect where the intent was previously implemented through an invalid administrative circular instead of statutory rules. The Court reiterated the legislature's power to enact retrospective laws to cure such defects and to remove the basis of judicial decisions, emphasizing that a dealer's inability to pass on the tax burden to consumers does not invalidate the legislature's competence to impose tax retrospectively.